(Bihar Times) Last  week I came across this very interesting debate and I thought you should read  it. A Contemporary Moral Issues class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison  took up the one issue being debated fiercely across the world: to eat or not to  eat meat.   These are the main arguments, for and against, that were  brought up.  
          1.      The Bible Argument: 
          “The Bible says we shall have dominion over the  animals and I take that to mean that we can eat meat and use animals however we  want.  Therefore, we can eat meat.”  
          Objection 1:     If one takes what the Bible says to support one’s position, one will have to  believe that a wife must submit to her husband, homosexuals are immoral,   rebellious sons must be stoned to death publicly, women are tempted by snakes  etc.  People tend to pick and choose what parts of any religious text they  want and twist it to suit what they want to do.   
              
              Objection 2:    What is intended by “Man shall have  dominion over the animals” is subject to interpretation.  What is intended  could be, “Do whatever you want to the animals, like torturing, eating,  bestiality, etc.”, but, “Since I made humans with more reason than the rest of  the animals on earth, it will be up to you to see that they are cared for  .”  Why would God want an interpretation of violence rather than love ?  Parents have dominion over their children; but this does not imply that we can  torture or kill or  eat them. 
              Objection 3:     If you interpret the Bible as encouraging you to eat animals then are all the  other holy Books such as the Qur’an, Rig-Veda, Dhammapada, Taoist texts, Book  of Mormon, etc., wrong? 
              Objection 4:     There is a clear direction in the Bible to eat vegetables,grain and fruit only  :  In Genesis 1:29, God says to Adam and Eve, “I have given you  every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every  tree, in the which [sic] is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall  be for meat.”  It says that man shall have dominion over the animals, but  it doesn’t say there that we shall have them for food, as it does of fruits and  vegetables.   
          2.     
                
          The Tradition Argument:  
          “I’ve been brought up eating meat and never  questioned it.  Our culture accepts eating meat as well.  Therefore,  I should be able to eat meat.”  
          Objection  1:    The fact that one has been raised to eat meat is more of an explanation of why the meat-eating started, but cannot justify the claim that eating meat  is ethically good.  What if one were raised to hit people on the heads  with hammers ?  To use more real examples:  “My culture states that  people of color are inferior.” And, “My culture states that women should be  submissive and stay at home.”  These statements reflect the predominant  opinion at one time. Are we to accept them as “proper” forever? 
              Objection  2:    Everything a culture accepts may not be ethically good, e.g.,  slavery,  thuggery, killing girl children, etc.  Once you see there  is no valid reason to continue current behaviour , this is immoral. 
              Objection  3:    This argument allows us to eat humans:  All that is  required is that one is raised in a cannibalistic tradition.
              
           
          3.      The Taste Argument: 
          “I love the way meat tastes.  I won’t deprive  myself of this.  Therefore, I should be able to eat meat.”  
          Objection  1:    This argument leaves open the possibility that a person can  say, “I love the way human meat tastes.”  This principle is an argument to  eat anything and treat the victim as badly as you like. 
              Objection  2:    Think about what it would sound like to argue as  follows:  “I like the way it sounds so I don’t see why I should give it  up,” when someone asks you why you’re hitting infants on the head with a  hammer.  Or, “I like the way it smells when I burn human flesh!”  One  who makes this argument leaves open the possibility that any sensation  that brings pleasure is something that it’s OK to enjoy, no matter what it  entails to enjoy it!  “I have fun   when I beat my wife  after drinking.” 
              
              Objection 3:    Taste is also linked with or caused  by tradition:  In the Northeast eating dogs is common but a goat is a pet.  Imagine being told , have some dead dog on a bun , its great.  .   
              Objection  4:     If this argument can justify current practices of raising and killing non-human  animals for food, then it justifies raising humans for organs in the same way. 
          4.      The Teeth Argument:  
          “Our teeth are made for eating meat.  All  animals that have teeth like ours eat meat.  So we should be able to eat  meat.”  
          Objection 1:     Just because our anatomy is able to do something does not imply that we should do that thing, or that it is morally acceptable to do it.  Biologically, I  am able to spit.  But it is not considered acceptable to spit in other  peoples’ faces.  Hitting or torturing people is another example. Eating  human babies is another thing you can do. But will you ?
              
               
              Objection 2:     Our teeth aren’t really “made” to eat meat.  We cannot, for example, walk  up to a cow or pig and start gnawing.   We have molars like  vegetarian animals and not canines. Moreover, we’d acquire lots of diseases if  we were to eat uncooked meats. 
              Objection 3:     If biologically my teeth can eat meat, then this argument does not give us any  moral reason to not eat humans . 
          5.      The Nutrition  Argument:  
          “We need  the protein that is provided in meat.  Therefore, we should be able to eat  meat.”  
          Objection 1:     What if I want to get my protein from human flesh?  This argument   allows us the moral reason to eat humans.   
              
              Objection 2:    Protein is necessary, but getting  protein from animals, dairy products and eggs is not necessary.  Why kill  animals if it is not necessary?  Whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and  legumes give you much better protein.  
          6.      The Darwinian  Argument:  
          “The process of evolution has placed humans, the  stronger, in a position to be able to use the weaker (non-human animals) for  our eating and other pleasures.  Other animals besides us eat meat (i.e.,  other animals) – are they immoral?  It’s a natural instinct we have to eat  meat.  Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”  
          Objection 1:     If the stronger are always able to use the weaker however they please simply  because they are more powerful, then we are in trouble.  This argument  justifies child abuse, killing infants, the senile, retarded etc.  This is  an “anything goes” principle, which cannot be limited to only include  non-humans? 
              Objection 2:     Other animals act solely on natural instincts, and in the wild, must kill what  they’re killing in order to stay alive.  We are not in a situation where  (1) we can only act from natural instincts and (2) it is necessary to eat  non-human animals.   We should question this “animal instinct” in  ourselves – that is what makes us different.
              
           
          7.      The A-moral Beings  Argument:  
          “ Non-human animals cannot morally question their  actions like humans can, and this is what makes humans special.  If beings  cannot question how they live, then they have no intrinsic worth or rights.  Therefore, we should be able to eat them.”  
          Objection 1:     Non-human animals are not the only beings who cannot question how they  live/act:  fetuses, infants, comatose, senile, or severely retarded  persons cannot as well.  How can we then claim that these beings have  intrinsic worth or rights?  If one responds, “because they have value to  other humans,” then what about humans that no one cares about ? 
              Objection 2:     It’s ironic that one would argue that humans are moral beings and can question  what they do, and argue that this morality gives us the reason to treat  non-human animals badly and kill them because they lack this power. This  power is what makes us have a greater, and not a lesser, responsibility to  other beings.
              
           
          8.      The  Intelligence/Rationality Argument:  
          “Humans are more intelligent and more rational than  non-humans.  These characteristics give us the right or opportunity to be  able to use non-humans for food.  Therefore, we should be able to eat  meat.”  
          Objection 1:     There are unintelligent, irrational humans – they cannot eat meat ? Can we eat  them ?  
              Objection 2:     If we are more intelligent and rational than non-human animals, then we should  be able to understand what is not good for us or the world at large – and there  are far more reasons to not eat meat than to eat it.  
            
          
          
          
            
           
            
            
            
            
              
          To join the animal welfare movement contact gandhim@nic.in            |